Another concern that was raised in the old thread was the "types" of tournaments that are being created.

As we all know, not all tournaments are created equal but each have their place. A 16-person-win-4-games is not on the same level as an Amazzony-few-month-long behemoth of a tournament.

This is a completely different topic than the other thread and I wanted to split that discussion over here so that we can be more focused. Remember to please stay on topic and avoid flaming. We'd like to make the tournament area better for everyone involved, so let's have a nice-mannered discussion.

Rather touchy subject, in my opinion (which is why I wanted it separate).

As I said in the other thread, I enjoy playing in a quick-hitting tournament every so often. But sometimes the "rewards" for them seem to outweigh the same reward for playing (and hosting) in a tournament that requires more dedication. Is a victory from winning four 1v1 games really equal to a victory in a tournament that requires months of games?

I'd love to see more "meat" added to tournaments that are being created as it seems like more and more are headed down the patch of simple as possible. From my experiences no matter where we set the bar, there will be people who only do the minimum required. So I don't know if raising the bar would even have a beneficial result.

Just leave the medals for the medal heads. Be sure, if you win some grand tournament - you will be known and congratulated anyway (often in newsletter). Winning 1v1 random tourney just gives you a medal and nothing more.

I don't think we should change how the medals are given out. A tournament is a tournament and a victor is a victor.

The big thing that I would like to see change is the number of participants. The current rule states that you only need 16 total participants, but I think that needs to change. I'm not entirely sure on how to word this.

Tournaments that are quads can be run with only 4 teams entering, tournaments that are doubles can be run with only 8 teams entering. That means that compared to a singles tournament, you have a much better chance at winning (25% for quads, 12.5% for doubles, 6.25% for singles). I suggest that it should be 16 spots - so for doubles, triples, and quads you need 16 teams at a minimum.

Otherwise, I think the rest of the tournaments should be fair game. Maybe some other restrictions, but I'm going to go into those in the other thread.

I haven't really read the other post, but I would like to share a few thoughts.

Blitz is famous for his "quick-hitting" tournaments of 4 quads teams. You play best of 7, two teams advance, one more best of seven. No, I don't think the winners have huge bragging rights across CC, but at the same time, it is nice to be able to get some scheduled games in, and get some results. So to some extent, I think they serve a valuable role at CC.

Also, I don't think the 16 player rule can necessarily be changed. Some tournaments are really fun because they allow a smaller group of players to play a lot of games with each other of several rounds. So they can still be involved, but maybe have only 16 players.

Here is the other thing: I like that tournaments has such clear cut rules. Take a look at the foundry. They are currently struggling because much of it is subjective. Even with such awesome and well defined rules as they have put together, it is still up to several people's opinions when a map has good enough graphics, or balanced gameplay, etc. I like that tournaments has such well defined rules.

I guess though, for me the focus is less on medals and more on, does this tournament provide a fun or exciting way to play CC?

Having said all that, I do think it would be very cool to have some different policies in place. I would like to see some larger tournaments, such as CC olympics, or take Bart's 100th, whatever it may be, and somehow "feature" them across the site. Or, if CC could have an official, everyone on the site is invited, 1v1 tournament, that would be great.

Anyways just some thoughts late at night, possibly a little buzzed as well.

While I agreed with the other thread on sub forums. I strongly disagree here.

Fast hitting tournaments are fun and they sometimes require a month commitment from the Organizer that doesn't want to commit 3 or 6 months to a tourney. As in my NFL tourney that lasts the entire football season (about 4-5 months). I will only do one large tourney at a time which is very complex & time consuming. During the same time as this tourney I have ran & completed another 10 smaller ones.

I will be completely honest here, while I wont jump the gun & just start canceling tourneys because of a conversation, I will tell you if you take away the smaller fast hitting tourneys, you will end up with very few tourneys left & no one to play them.

I play in any & all tourneys from HA's dont blink all the way up to Gilligans 5 man madness which is on every single map in CC

However I play in very few really long tourneys & many fast hitting ones because of the commitment involved. Not to mention Freemiums are less likely to join tourneys that are too long because they take up too many game spots. And, fast hitting tourneys are what attract the new players to the tournaments in the first place.

I for one would quit Organizing & playing in tourneys all together if I am going to be told what kind I would have to run or join. Being that about 90% of my games played are in tourneys, chances are I would drop my premium & probably find a new hobby all together.

HOWEVER:Assume you can convince Lack to make several tiers of Tournament medals, depending on the complexity of the tournament.Who makes the decision on how involved a tournament is, what kind of criteria do you use? Number of games played? In the tournament, or by the winner? Number of games needed to be won? What about Leagues, then? Or tiurnaments where ranking is given based on finishing position? Those yield different values for each of the first two questions...

Unless you have a plan to split tournaments into "categories" to present as a proposal, I think you have to be willing to accept all tournaments as equal. I certainly don't think all the tournaments I've played in required the same amount of concentration to play, or luck, or skill'... But I also have no desire to try and categorize them.

MG, I can't exactly argue with your statements as I agree with them. I'm torn at wanting there to be more girth to tournaments but at the same time I realize the quick ones have their place (and I enjoy them too).

I guess at a certain point it's more annoying to see the fast ones comprising more and more of the total. Especially when it seems that we've had a certain influx of "medal hunters" that never existed in the tournament forum before. I just miss a lot of the originality of tournaments from a few years ago and the friendly atmosphere of gaming without worry of who gets what.

I wouldn't worry about the fast ones being taken away. I think that would be an awful idea.

Kinnison wrote: I certainly don't think all the tournaments I've played in required the same amount of concentration to play, or luck, or skill'... But I also have no desire to try and categorize them.

16 players1vs1 best of 3 per round Thats 24 games in round 1, 12 games in round 2, 6 games in round 3 and 3 games in round 4. That's 45 games played in tourney and the minimum is 5 by rule.Which means any player winning one of my small tourneys has to win at least 8 games (2 per round) when the minimum games required to play is 5. Heck the winner has to win almost double that total. So I guess what I'm saying is how can that not be considered worthy of a trophy or any less worthy I should say?

mgconstruction wrote:I guess I should clarify what I mean by small tourneysMy smallest tourneys consist of, 16 players1vs1 best of 3 per round Thats 24 games in round 1, 12 games in round 2, 6 games in round 3 and 3 games in round 4. That's 45 games played in tourney and the minimum is 5 by rule.Which means any player winning one of my small tourneys has to win at least 8 games (2 per round) when the minimum games required to play is 5. Heck the winner has to win almost double that total. So I guess what I'm saying is how can that not be considered worthy of a trophy or any less worthy I should say?

Right, and the one I just finished running was 330 games, 39 each by the folks eliminated in the first round, 78 by the finalists, each. The tournament winner has won 34+ of those (3 still running, but he had enough points to take it)... And that's not a particularly large tournament compared to some I've seen.

How about the sports leagues? NHL, 30 teams, 82 games each just to get through the "regular season", then playoffs?

I am NOT saying your tournament was inconsequential. I like tourneys like that, too. The one I've managed to win was the format you mentioned, pretty much to a 'T'. But is it the same level of commitment as what I've just mentioned, to player or TO?

...no. But it's still a matter of where do you draw the line, and how, and who? So yes, I DO believe we should all get the same awards, no matter the tournament. Even if some 'higher power' defines where the breakpoints are, and has a way to enforce them... that will just cause people to ride the edges of the bands in making and joining tourneys. THERE IS NO SOLUTION to this one.

So MG... long story short... I also agree with you. Any attempt to categorize tournaments officially into 'tiers' will just lead to more trouble.

I don't mind getting the same medal for my year-long-tournament as somebody else gets for his 4 week tournament, I really and honestly don't. I'm also quite sure that most people who run complex tournaments do it because they have a cool idea and they want to share it with others to - along with other reasons - to show off a bit perhaps. I know that one reason why I run them is because of the amazing comments players give you if you run something interesting and successful. The thank that I get for my simplest tournaments is nice but when I ran something huge and people congratulate me on that - man, that's awesome!

I don't think you can start weighing tournaments but IMHO perfect solution would be to raise the minimum limits (currently 5 games and 16 player per tournament). These limits were fine when they were created because the flow of people wasn't as it is now - less people meant less tournaments.

My suggestion is to double the number of games which would mean at least 10 games per tournament. People would still be able to run 16-player bracket tournaments (which would mean that 4 wins are needed to win the tournament) but those multiplayer-2-game-win tournaments would be denied. I have nothing against them, I've played in them but it's possible to put more depth into these tournaments and this rule would force it.

I think team tournaments are becoming more and more popular (too lazy to check the stats but I can't be too wrong) so player-minimum limit should be rechecked and limits to teams should be put. Nowadays, a lot of people have their certain partner(s) to play with (or clan where to find somebody) so setting minimum limit a bit higher than with single-player games shouldn't be a problem IMO. Winning a 4 team tournament is like winning a 4-player tournament for me.... Anyway, I don't seem to be able to write anything proper about this topic (and it has been done before me) so I'd just say that I'd suggest setting limits to 8 doubles teams (which is what it is now), 6 triples teams and 6 quads teams. It's really not a problem getting these teams together, even for a beginner organiser and at the same time the win means a lot more than in 4-team tournament. 16 spots would be a bit too much IMO because sometimes you want to run smaller tournaments with teams but with 16 teams, damn, that's a lot to deal and I think it would be unfair to less experienced organisers who wish to run team-tournaments.

One more thing that could be limit and at the same time keep integrity in tournaments - if tournament is smaller than X number of players then organiser isn't allowed to play in its own tournament. It seems a bit harsh but.... every idea is worth to be thrown out to the wolves.

Once again I would like to say what Bones already said - be polite and don't turn it into a FlameFest 2010! This thread is not made to tear down smaller tournaments!!! Just to discuss the difference between smaller and bigger ones, if and what policies should be changed/added and similar stuff. Please don't get hostile and defensive, nobody has given a reason for that

"Thou shalt accept thy dice rolls as the will of the Gods" (Church of Gaming)"amazzony is a beast" (Woodruff)

One more thing that could be limit and at the same time keep integrity in tournaments - if tournament is smaller than X number of players then organiser isn't allowed to play in its own tournament. It seems a bit harsh but.... every idea is worth to be thrown out to the wolves.

Uh, this is something that I think needs to be discussed further. I have always just thought it more "professional" to not participate in my own tournaments, unless as with my objective one, I had a ton of deadbeats. How can you be objective and fair when you are playing? And I would never want to encourage starting a bunch of small tournaments with your own favorite settings, hoping to win one and get a medal that way.

And then we have issues that have spilled way over into GD about players having a voting system for elimination and then just eliminating everyone not on their team...

Even PaulusH at least does things like write up the description, and then next post write "Hmm, assassin, looks interesting, I think I will join" and then reports his games in the thread to maintain some sort of separation. I am not saying no one can ever be in their own tournaments, but I think this is another example of something that some people understand the etiquette for, and some people just need more help with.

I think the people who run the longer tournaments as in the year long or 6-month long or 100s of games ones will generally not care about the medals. For if you cared about the medals you'd just run smaller tournaments

max is gr8 wrote:I think the people who run the longer tournaments as in the year long or 6-month long or 100s of games ones will generally not care about the medals. For if you cared about the medals you'd just run smaller tournaments

or care about the oodles of deadbeats from players quitting the site over the course of a year or remaining active but dont renew premium and cant join games due to not having any room to join a game. you can run a trips/quads tourney with 16 teams and the tourney will still take up to 2 months to complete.

Again we seem to have part of a discussion no medals here. I really really really think that this is an irrelevant factor. Lets be clear, the players who want to run a 16 player 1v1 tournament just to get a medal can. I've got no problem with that. They can't do it 30 times for 30 medals because they become franchised so either they have to evolve into new ideas or run tournaments for reasons other than medals. Thus for me its a non issue and I would say that if we add some new TOs simply because they run their first one for the medal and then stay around then isn't that a good thing on the site?

max is gr8 wrote:I think the people who run the longer tournaments as in the year long or 6-month long or 100s of games ones will generally not care about the medals. For if you cared about the medals you'd just run smaller tournaments

Again you type and the crap comes out-you have no idea what motivates people to run or play in a tourney.

Some of the people on this site think a virtual medal is the greatest thing ever while some could care less.

I am maxed out on medal yet I run a lot of small tourneys for nothing -so what is your wise analysis on the oh great one.

Heck, when I started running and playing in tourneys for that fact I didn't even know you received a medal by running or winning a tourney.

I love competition and that is my motivation. Does not matter the size, I just love to compete and I have brought enjoyment to hundreds of players. I have the list of players that have competed in my tourney if you want that so you can find a way in your world to degrade them.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.

Bones2484 wrote:There was nothing insulting about max's comment. If you can't act like an adult and place nice, please stay out of this thread.

What another opinion from the great bones telling me to act like an adult. You opinion on how I can act and your opinion on anything really mean nothing to me. Max has degraded my work and I will say and do what I want to and what you, him, or anyone else say means nada to me.

(See Spanish jricart--another Spanish word I know)

To me you are lazy that you can't sift through a couple extra posts in a 2 page thread. Then you act high and mighty like you are trying to make a difference.

If I want to punch back at someone who I feel is a very ignorant person I will do so and if I want to do it here I will.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.

I run tournaments because A) I enjoy doing it and B) no one else runs tournaments with the settings I use (flat/chained/foggy). So I fill a void and get to have fun doing it--because it's the setting I enjoy playing.

Now, the nature of those settings cause my tournaments to last awhile. Further, I like complication--I think a tournament should have some substance to it, rather than just a couple exhibition games--so I always have multiple round-robins. Even my team tournaments, which I just expanded to, involve series. In other words, I don't run any single-elimination tournaments. So far I have 16 tournaments either complete, running or recruiting; the largest had 97 games, the smallest had 35 games (and none involve 1v1 matches, aside from tiebreakers).

I give this background because you would think I might be a little irritated that someone who runs a 4-game tournament gets the same "recognition" that I do (or that a person who wins 2 games gets the same award that a winner of one of my tournaments gets). Well, I'm not. Because here's the thing (aside from the obvious that little medal icons on a website don't matter at all)... I usually have 20-36 slots in my tournaments and I'd venture to say that 50% are almost always filled by the same players. In other words, the larger, more complicated tournaments seem to attract the same pool of players. In the one tournament where I expanded to 48 players, I struggled to recruit because everyone knows that tournament is going to last a year or so.

I suspect a lot of the more casual players are reticent to commit to big endeavors like my tournaments. And that's quite frankly a good thing... if you put in more stringent policies where only massive tournaments were allowed, you'd get a lot of deadbeats because there'd only be one type of option for new tournament players. So far, in 16 tournaments involving about 600 entries, I think I've had a total of 4 deadbeats. I think the smaller tournaments provide for a communal competitive environment for the more casual players; and if someone deadbeats in one of those, big deal. Sure, some people sign up for every tournament in the hopes of getting as many medals as possible (the mentality behind this I will never understand, but that's irrelevant right now). So what?

At the most, maybe you divide the "create tournament" forum into two sections... one for single-elimination tournaments and one for all others, so that people can more easily find the type of tournament they are looking for. Aside from that, I don't think there's a real need to fix anything.

jpcloet wrote:Why can't we class/tag them based on size? Small, Medium, Large and Epic......

Because it's too vague. I've played in tournaments that were supposed to be large or epic but downgraded due to lack of interest, and I've played in small tournaments that turned large because of too much interest.

Are you defining their size based on the number of players or the length of the tournament? Some small tournaments go on for months while some large tournaments end in a couple of weeks.

And your boundaries would be very vague as well. 16 player 1v1 single elimination would be small, and 32 player 1v1 single elimination would be medium, but what about a 16 player 1v1 double elimination. Now you have a tournament that has the same number of players as a small tournament, but the same number of games as a medium tournament.

Bones2484 wrote:There was nothing insulting about max's comment. If you can't act like an adult and place nice, please stay out of this thread.

What another opinion from the great bones telling me to act like an adult. You opinion on how I can act and your opinion on anything really mean nothing to me. Max has degraded my work and I will say and do what I want to and what you, him, or anyone else say means nada to me.

(See Spanish jricart--another Spanish word I know)

To me you are lazy that you can't sift through a couple extra posts in a 2 page thread. Then you act high and mighty like you are trying to make a difference.

If I want to punch back at someone who I feel is a very ignorant person I will do so and if I want to do it here I will.

You might be an adult, but you can't take words as words and not an insult towards you. Really, if you don't stand critics (even when everyone says it is not about only you on the site) - don't read this thread. People will come to consensus and TD's will tell lack what is need to be done. So please, stop flaming people (even if they flame you first) - that is not hte purpose of this thread.

You've maxed out on medals so any tournament you make after the 30th is not important to your medal count. What I'm saying is that if people are desiring medals they'd go down the route of making a large number of small tournaments.

I'm saying that the people who make the massive tournaments that take a long period of time to finish won't be concentrating on the medals. And if they were they wouldn't be making long tournaments. The medal system is fine, people don't complain that they've put masses of effort into the tournament and only got a medal.

I love competition and that is my motivation. Does not matter the size, I just love to compete and I have brought enjoyment to hundreds of players. I have the list of players that have competed in my tourney if you want that so you can find a way in your world to degrade them.

How you got that from the:

I think the people who run the longer tournaments as in the year long or 6-month long or 100s of games ones will generally not care about the medals. For if you cared about the medals you'd just run smaller tournaments

I'm not attacking you, you are perceiving that that comment is in any way aimed at you. If I was aiming it at you I'd say "HA has run masses of 16 player bracket tournaments that don't deserve as many medals". I was saying that if someone is taking the time and effort to run a 6 month long tournament then they probably aren't in it for the medals.

Am I special Did I do anything wrong Is that the reason why you didn't join Why do you comment my tournaments, while you never have been part of it

As far as I know it is allowed to join your own tournament The first time I joined one of my own tournaments was because there was one special place to fill, which was clearly worse compared to all other places Now I do it also when I use clear simple setups with specific games-settings of which it otherwise is difficult to find good games. In fact I hardly join tournaments or games for winning them, but more for the fun. My fun is getting to understand how the people would react in the games and tournaments and based on my predictions of that make my next turn; so yes in the end I have more fun when I win, but that is not the starting point

In the example you mentioned it is simply a 3x3-bracket of a 3x3 windmill, hardly to make more simple tournaments